Oil-fracking regs tap well of resentment

In this Dec. 5, 2012 photo, the sun sets behind an oil pump jack and the Rocky Mountains near Fredrick, Colo. Citizen fears about hydraulic fracturing, a drilling procedure used to pry oil and gas from rock deep underground, have made "fracking" the hottest political question in Colorado. In Novemb

/ AP Photo/Ed Andrieski

In this Dec. 5, 2012 photo, the sun sets behind an oil pump jack and the Rocky Mountains near Fredrick, Colo. Citizen fears about hydraulic fracturing, a drilling procedure used to pry oil and gas from rock deep underground, have made "fracking" the hottest political question in Colorado. In November, citizens in the Denver suburb of Longmont voted overwhelmingly to ban fracking despite heavy opposition from the oil and gas industry and warnings of lawsuits. Now the fracking debate is rocking small local governments _ and leaving the industry wondering how to proceed in a state that has long embraced the oil and gas industry.

In this Dec. 5, 2012 photo, the sun sets behind an oil pump jack and the Rocky Mountains near Fredrick, Colo. Citizen fears about hydraulic fracturing, a drilling procedure used to pry oil and gas from rock deep underground, have made "fracking" the hottest political question in Colorado. In November, citizens in the Denver suburb of Longmont voted overwhelmingly to ban fracking despite heavy opposition from the oil and gas industry and warnings of lawsuits. Now the fracking debate is rocking small local governments _ and leaving the industry wondering how to proceed in a state that has long embraced the oil and gas industry. (/ AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)

SACRAMENTO After the 2010 gubernatorial election, former legislator and activist Tom Hayden touted Jerry Brown’s past willingness to stand up to “powerful interests” in the oil industry as a sure sign that California would eschew fossil-fuel dependence and embark on a green-energy revolution.

But a funny thing happened on California’s road to an oil-free future. The governor’s recent signing of a bill regulating hydraulic fracturing may tie the state’s economic future and its budget more closely than ever to the extraction of oil.

With SB 4, the governor angered the oil industry, defied public opinion (a new poll points to strong opposition to “fracking”) and left the environmental movement in disarray. He did so by following a path he had publicly mapped out – allowing drilling of vast oil reserves, while assuring that new environmental rules were in place.

Fracking is the process by which the oil industry injects water, sand and chemicals (and sometimes acid) thousands of feet below ground into rock formations. It’s a relatively new means to flush out oil reserves that had been too difficult and costly to extract. This innovation has sparked an energy boom in places such as North Dakota.

California’s Monterey Shale, which lies underneath a large portion of the state including the San Joaquin Valley, “is estimated to hold as much as two-thirds of the recoverable onshore shale-oil reserves in the U.S.’s lower 48 states,” according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Oil companies now use fracking techniques in California, but the Monterey formation could unleash the process on a grand scale, which spurred the Legislature’s drive for new rules. The state had many regulations on general oil extraction, but none specifically tailored to fracking.

Some environmentalists want a moratorium on fracking, which they claim threatens water supplies and creates toxic-waste problems (many activists oppose oil development, in general). Others support the goal of allowing but regulating it, with key groups withdrawing support after the addition of last-minute amendments that could expedite the permitting process. Most groups say the law doesn’t go far enough.

The industry rightly worries about overregulation, but was most concerned about a moratorium. The end result is so complex that both sides are figuring out what it all means, and there no doubt will be litigation. But fracking can proceed, which is good news for the economy, the depressed Central Valley and the tax rolls.

The industry opposed the law, but can live with it. “I don’t think [the law] will provide any more protection than we have now,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, told me. “But welcome to California.” Most telling, perhaps, was the praise she offered for the governor’s “balanced approach.”

One prominent environmental writer noted that disagreement within the environmental movement reduced its ability to shape the law. But most environmentalists – except for the ban-fracking, anti-oil crowd -- can probably live with it, too.

There’s never been reason to doubt the governor’s support for expanded oil exploration. He replaced two Schwarzenegger-era officials who were slowing down the oil-permitting process. “We have 30 million vehicles in California,” the governor said at a March press conference. “That’s a lot of oil. … We should be reducing it much faster than we are … but that still doesn’t mean that in the meantime there isn’t oil under the ground in California that can’t be made very useful.”

“The administration has said that fracking may be one of the keys of getting 15 billion barrels of oil, and if it is the method, we need good regulation,” said Jason Marshall, a top Department of Conservation official. The agency already was developing regulatory rules as the legislative process moved forward, he added. So via regulation or law, tough fracking rules were coming. That reaffirms my sense that SB 4 doesn’t accomplish nearly as much regulation-wise as it does politically (i.e., demonstrating Democratic support for controlled oil exploration).